Artist's Views On The Value Of Music

All the artists who's opinions I gathered had the same general ideas on the value of their music. They were all against the idea of their fans obtaining their music for free, although some more than others.  It seems all artists would agree that flat out taking someone's music without paying for it is wrong, and kind of insulting to the artist, but all musicians have different opinions on things like Pandora, or Spotify, sites that pay royalties but doesn't demand the customer buy the music to listen. Arjen Lucassen, a dutch singer/songwrighter said in an interview with Sound Shock, "as a musician, when your album isn’t even out and people are already downloading it for free, it hurts. It’s my only income and at a point like that, you’re thinking ‘something will have to be done.'" It's upsetting to him when people take his music without paying for it, when music is your only source of income it makes sense. Although he realizes that this dilema is nearly impossible to police, he hopes that his real fans will help him out by buying his music. Like many other  artists, he is concerned that some people trying to come into the music industry will either be turned away, or fail because they won't be able to support themselves on royalty fees from websites like Spotify and Pandora. Artists, especially ones just starting out need a solid income in order to keep producing music. The music industry is neither cheap nor easy to make it in, so musicians who are just starting out are finding it hard to keep going. It was hard enough to make it when people had to pay for music but now that people are able to obtain it for free, it is only getting harder and harder to "make it". In an interview with Calum Robson, Lucassen says that he would try to stop people from taking his music, but he knows that people won't like it, and in the end he may end up on the bottom, without fans.

Most musicians would agree that illegal downloading is wrong, but some like David Bryne go far enough to be against all music distribution sites, incuding ones like Pandora and Spotify. Even though both of these sites pay huge royalty fees, some feel cheated if they're not getting everything. Byrne feels that these high prices are going stop development in the music industry and therefor "suck all creative content out of the world". While Lucassen was hesitant with saying flat out that he was extremely against people taking his music, Byrne doesn't hold back, he seems to hate everything that lets people stream music, to me that seems greedy, especially when the sites that he's talking about (Spotify) pays 70% in royalty fees. In the beginning of his article he seems to be just against music sites like Pandora or spotify, but by the end he goes on to say that the internet as a whole is "sucking the creative content out of the world". So, to me it just seemed like Byrne liked to complain.

I was also able to speak with Marblehead's own Hayley Reardon who seemed to be more on Lucassen's page then on Byrne's.  She said that these sites can be really good for getting your music out to the public, but music has worth and she finds it dissapointing when her fans obtain her music without paying for it. Although, in Hayley's case, she makes the majority of her money from live performances anyway, so if her music being listened to for free is what's going to get people to come pay to listen to her live, it almost seems worth it to let your music be free.

From my research I found that every artist has a different opinion on things like Pandora or Spotify, but they all seem to agree that it shouldn't be okay for people to take music without paying for it. So, after reading and hearing the opinions of many different artists on this subject, from now on I will not be downloading music for free, but I don't think I'll ever stop using Pandora and Spotify.

Artist’s Views on the Importance of Music

Artists from all over the world express different views on the inherent value of music and the issue of music piracy.  The artist’s opinions usually depend on his or her status, wealth and how successful he or she is in the music industry. The 1960’s Beatles star, Paul McCartney, originally stated that he had no issue with music piracy but in 2009 he stated, “If you get on a bus you've got to pay," McCartney said, "And I think it's fair, you should pay your ticket. The problem is you get a lot of young bands coming up and some of them aren't going to last forever, so if they have a massive hit that's going to pay their mortgage forever, they're going to feed the children on that and if they don't get that money, if they don't see that money, I think it's a bit of a pity."  Even though Paul McCartney was an artist who was extremely successful, his views still state that piracy isn’t the right thing to do especially with young bands that might only have one big hit.  He comes from an age where this had not been an issue, and where one would simply walk into a store and purchase “a 45”.  David Bowie, another artist from the 1960s, has a slightly different opinion on the matter.  “I don't even know why I would want to be on a label in a few years because I don't think it's going to work by labels and by distribution systems in the same way," Bowie said. "The absolute transformation of everything that we ever thought about music will take place within 10 years, and nothing is going to be able to stop it. I'm fully confidant that copyright, for instance, will no longer exist in 10 years, and authorship and intellectual property is in for such a bashing.”  David Bowie is saying that piracy is neither good nor bad and there is not much the world can do about it due to the recourses available to consumers.  These are two views from artists from the 60’s, so it is interesting to see what a current artist has to say.  Hayley Reardon is from Marblehead Massachusetts and is a singer/songwriter who shared how she promotes herself and explaines her feeling on music piracy.    “I use your typical social networking sites (Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr) to keep people updated on live shows and new music. I also collect email addresses and send out an email newsletter with all kinds of info.”  When asked how she feels about artists giving away music online for free, Hayley said, “I think giving away music can be a really good marketing tool to get your music heard by more people and I’ve done it myself many times. I also believe, however, that art is worth something. So in my mind it’s about creating a balance between giving up sales when you know it’s going to gain you some new fans, and charging for your art when you know there are people out there who love it enough to pay for it.” Finally she answered the question of illegally downloading music and how she feels if her fans did that with her own songs.  Hayley had mixed feelings about it and said, “Its always a bummer to have people getting your music for free when they could be paying for it, but I don’t take it personally. I’m thrilled to have people listening to my music regardless of how they get their hands on it. As I said, I have pretty much come to accept how integrated into our world music piracy has become. I’m always on the look out for new, creative ways to subsidize my music and make up for the free downloading that goes on. There are musicians out there handling the issue in a really creative, positive way and successfully facing the challenges of making a living off of music in a changing digital world. That’s my goal - to focus less on how to stop people from illegally downloading my music and more on new, creative ways to fund what I love to do.”  Each artist shared a slightly different opinion on the matter, and it is interesting to see views of an artist from the 1960s, and an artist from 2013.  

The Value of Music: Artist's Perspective

In my research, I have found a few examples of copyright infringement to support the need for licenses. Here I have included a link to the very famous copyright case over Vanilla Ice's “Ice Ice Baby.” The hit rap song released in 1990 samples Queen and David Bowie's 1982 hit “Under Pressure.” Ice admitted that he sampled the song without getting permission and although the case never made it to court, had to pay royalties to Queen and Bowie. The case against Vanilla Ice provides an example of copyright infringement by means of sampling without permission.

A current artist may be charged with a somewhat different type of infringement: Robin Thicke, singer of the hit summer tune “Blurred Lines,” could be charged with being “influenced” buy two Marvin Gaye songs. The case was made by both Gaye's family and Bridgeport Music, who believe that Thicke's song sounded very similar to Gaye's songs “Got to Give It Up” and “Sexy Ways.” The question is: is it considered infringement if Thicke did not directly sample either song? The two ways to commit infringement are to 1) directly copy or sample a song and 2) create a song with substantial similarity to a prior work. So, did Thicke break copyright laws? I, along with others who have viewed this article, have listened to the three songs (Got to Give It Up, Sexy Ways, and Blurred Lines) and believe that Thicke did indeed break copyright laws. “Blurred Lines” sounds strikingly similar to “Got to Give It Up” alone, but when you take “Sexy Ways” into account, there is no doubt that Thicke was, at the very least, inspired by Gaye's songs.

Below I have included some quotes from various artists on their opinions of copyright and the possession of music:

“The absolute transformation of everything that we ever thought about music will take place within 10 years, and nothing is going to be able to stop it. I see absolutely no point in that it's not going to happen. I'm fully confident that copyright, for instance, will no longer exist in 10 years.” -David Bowie (obtained from BrainyQuote) 

                                                                      (Source)

“Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it.” -John Lennon (BrainyQuote)

                                                                   (Source)

“All good music resembles something. Good music stirs by its mysterious resemblance to objects and feelings which motivated it.” -John Cocteau (BrainyQuote; this one does not necessarily say anything about copyright, but I think it represents a feeling towards the similarity between a pair of songs)

“No, generally I think 'influence' is used as a nice word for plagiarism.” -Gilbert Gottfried (BrainyQuote)

“When I listen to Radio 1 and here five different tracks in a row using old disco samples, well that's plagiarism, that's taking other people's music.” -Jay Kay (BrainyQuote)

As you can see, different artists have different opinions on the idea of copyright. Some believe it will help their careers, but most others do not like the idea of plagiarism.

Tag! You're It is a pop/punk band originating in Phoenix, Arizona. It consists of Josh (guitar/backup vocals), Matt (bass/backup vocals), Reuben (drums), and Sonny (lead vocals). Interview with Tag! You’re It:

            Rhei (RB): “Is music the only source of income for you?”

Tag! You’re It (TYI): “Music is not the only source of income. We all have full-time jobs and attend school during the week days. It helps with funding our goals”

RB: “How are you getting your name out there?”

TYI: “We promote free using social media tools. In addition, we also go to shows, malls, other events to pass out fliers and meet new people.”

RB: “How would you feel about fans downloading your music illegally?”

TYI: “We love the idea of being able to spread our music by any means. Our goal isn't to make money, but to inform and become contagious.”

RB: “Is any of your music available on big sites like iTunes or Spotify? If not, do you want it to be?”

TYI: “Our EP is available on Bandcamp only at this time. Our new full album will be available on iTunes and Spotify. So yes, we do want to be.”

RB: “How do you guys interact as a band? How do you get along?”

TYI: “We have come a long way as friends and as band members. We work all of our issues out be being patient and listening to one and other. Our friendship has grown the strongest it's ever been each and every day. Time has also allowed us to communicate better, which is important.”

RB: “How did your group form?”

TYI: “It's kind of interesting. This band started off with all different members. We have all been in the same friends group for years. It formed by previous members leaving and eventually we replaced their positions with our others friends. Sonny, Josh, and Reuben met almost 5 years ago. Josh and Matt went to school with one and other. Things lined up perfectly, and we have been at it ever since.”

RB: “How many live shows have you played?”

TYI: “We have played a quite a bit of shows. I would have to say 50+ shows. We absolutely love to perform. The feeling is so addicting.”

RB: “How do you/would you split up royalties?”

TYI: “We haven't gotten quite to that point where we've concerned ourselves with money. Primarily because we all went to invest back into Tag! You're It. At this time, everything we make goes back into improving that much more. It's for our growth as a whole, not individually.”

RB: “Do you have any advice for new artists trying to get their names out there?”

TYI: “The best advise we can give is never let anyone say you can't do anything. Anyone can grow with persistence.”

In the digital world there is a vast mind boggling amount of files available. Many of which are music files. In the dark depths of the internet there are places to download any file you choose. Now many of these files, also known as torrents, are copies of a copy's copy.

Now what is a music file, in the simplest terms it is a stored log of 1's and 0's, known as binary. When music is recorded and compressed into these files it is not a physical thing, it is intangible, and cannot be represented in any physical form. Music as well in its simplest form is just sound waves that penetrate our ears and is sent to our brains, which translates electron pulses into sound.

Music has an inherent value, and when a person who creates music that is "new" they own the intellectual rights to that song. So when they sell a CD, Vinyl, or Tickets to a show, they are selling something that is tangible, there is some sort of physical thing being bought. When an Artist sells a CD or Vinyl they are selling a physical disc which has had their music inscribed onto it, and when they sell a Ticket they are selling a position at a venue at which they are playing. But when it comes to digital files, everything is profit. They have very little cost of production, where as when producing a CD, material goods must be purchased before money is made.

Compared to CD’s a digital MP3 files sound quality is inferior. The amount of data stored on a CD for your average 3 minute song is anywhere from 30-40 megabytes, whereas an MP3 is super, super compressed to around 4-8 megabytes. This causes a drastic reduction in sound quality. So why pay the same amount you would pay for a CD for a MP3 album? That’s why I say piracy is not as bad as many people think. To make an analogy, it would be the same as going into a Toyota dealership, and stealing the hand book for a Prius. 

A look at the dangers of illegal music downloading.

In the music world I believe that if an artist who personally wants their music to be heard by everybody then they should have no problem with illegal sharing on the internet. Personally I think that not purchasing an artists musical piece at a CD store, through iTunes or any other possible method is disrespectful to the artists. The artist might really need the support through the purchase of their work and without the support of their fans they cannot make more music. I cannot say that it is necessarily not done and not apparent in society today because even my dad has illegally downloaded music. I haven't but I know that it is a huge part of society because NOBODY wants to purchase music when you can get it for FREE. Think about it like this, if you could download a car in 30 seconds without any consequences would you do it. OF COURSE. But to be fair a good way to show your appreciation of somebodys music would be to buy their work. Just because there's an easier way to get something does not mean that it is right. There are many laws prohibiting the illegal download of musical works or distributing them that way whether it be over the internet or through a mix or burned CD. A case where the penalty has been extreme is “A federal court in Massachusetts has upheld a $675,000 judgment against a man accused of illegally downloading 31 songs and sharing them with other people on a file-sharing website. Joel Tenenbaum was sued by some of the largest music labels in the U.S., including Sony BMG, Warner Brothers, Atlantic, Arista, and UMG. Tenenbaum had requested for a new jury trial after the music labels were awarded $675,000 in damages.” ( Sean Ludwig “Court upholds $675K fine on man accused of illegally downloading 31 songs” venturebeat.com, 2012). This was a huge court case with the BU student and it was settled for him to pay this huge fine which will most likely put him in debt for the rest of his life. Before the more recent high speeds of the internet, in 2000 a music sharing site called napster.com was sued by the metal band Metallica because of copyright infringement. The bands drummer Lars Ulrich came forth to the Senate Judiciary Committee to read his testimony. He said that Napster had illegally gained access to one of their songs before release, the song “I Disappear” was supposed to be released in the Mission: Impossible II Soundtrack and Lars had heard it off the radio which led him to find the entire album illegally acquired and available for download on napster.com. Metallica sought at a minimum $10 million in damages and at 100,000 per song download. NetPD was an online firm that viewed and recorded the napster page where the songs were posted and 355,435 users of napster were found to be illegally downloading and sharing their music. Dr. Dre also teamed up to take down napster for what  they had done and in 2002 they had received so many allegations that they had to stop what they were doing and shut down the company. This shows how the illegal download of music can lead to huge problems for people. Some of the laws that prohibit acts like this are:

If you make unauthorized copies of music for people to download illegally, you are both stealing and breaking the law. People who are found guilty of copying music illegally could be held liable to pay thousands and thousands of dollars in damages. If you are caught doing this, you could potentially be sued in civil court. (http://www.ehow.com/)

Breaking these kinds of laws can cause fines up to millions of dollars, lowest fine is that of 750 dollars per song. To be honest the best way to avoid any kind of problem like this is to purchase your music off of iTunes or whatever program you use because at the end of the day, nobody wants to pay off something as embarrassing as this.

Music Piracy: Totes Not Swaggy

     For the human race, music is many different things. It is a pass time, an extracurricular activity, a competition, and much more. But for many artists, music is a livelihood. Music (and the rights to it) is bought and sold just as any commodity. And like any other commodity, there are people who wish to obtain music for free illegally. The means to do so vary from online piracy sites, burning CDs borrowed from a friend, and everything short of kidnapping the band. Regardless of the method, the motive is the same: people don't want to or believe they should have to pay for music. Artists the world over have reacted to this growing epidemic differently, ranging from artists outright condemning the act to some who don't really care, either because they are happy to have their music be heard, or they're too busy diving into their piles of money a la Scrooge McDuck to care about a few million 99 cent purchases. Dave Grohl of the Foo Fighters says "I think it’s a good idea because it’s people trading music".

The true face of music

Artists like these are what lead many people to believe piracy to be a victimless crime. However, many artists depend on sales of their music in order to provide for themselves, and to have their music pirated and not bought is a huge blow to them. Many fans justify decisions to pirate music by saying that they support the band through purchases of merchandise and concert tickets. These purchases are meaningless though, if no one buys the bands music. Many music pirates also believe that music, not being a physical entity, is not something that can be "stolen". However, said music most likely required much hard work and funds to produce, and the profit from that music is what will allow the artist to make more music, as well as provide for themselves if they do not have any other method of income. And while some may say it's enough to spread the artists music and make them more popular, the popularity if of no practical use if the band cannot afford to produce more music do to piracy. And while some fans may believe that artists' attempts to make money from their work is "selling out" to "the man", sometimes it is the only option if an artist wishes to have sufficient funds to continue making music and live comfortably. While it may be easy for fans to artists have no right to sell music, it would be very difficult for said music to exist if it was not sold. Music has been a profession for centuries, since the ages of when members of nobility were the benefactors of talented musicians. Only in modern times, there are no men of the obscenely wealthy nobility willing to support an artists career from their own pockets, or at least, not enough to go around. So the duty must fall upon us, the consumers, to support our favorite artists through purchasing their music, despite how the ever encompassing materialism of the music industry violates our principles. It is merely a sacrifice that the music consumer must make, and therefore must find ways of "sticking it to the man" in ways that don't hurt his/her favorite artists.

The two faces of the music industry: Both of whom are hurt by piracy

The Auditory Art: The Value of Music in Today's World

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines inherent as: " belonging to the basic nature of someone or something" and value as: "usefulness or importance of something."  Combine these two definitions and we find that the "inherent value" of something is natural worth an object or entity holds; it is the essential essence that we find happiness in and are therefore willing to expend money or energy to acquire.

Music is an central part of a society's identity: it is the auditory art, a core tenement of culture.  Music is the culmination of tones and rhythms we find pleasing to hear.  It has found its way into every element of our life, from rides in elevators to professional sports, from advertisement jingles to national anthems, and is even an event in of itself in the form of concerts and performances.  It's form has diversified; today there are hundreds and hundreds of genres of music, catering to all tastes and occasions.  The way we listen to music has also changed; we now listen to music through everything from live concerts to streaming music over the airwaves straight to our mobile devices, listening to the sounds emanate from tiny speakers we place in our ears.  All this prevalence of music has made it arguably the most popular and ubiquitous form of art.  But as music has become more prevalent and accessible, debates have arisen over whether music should be free, that once an artist creates a piece of music, that unique combination of notes and rhythm should be free for all to listen and play and copy and sample and expand, or whether that creative endeavor, born solely of their mind, belongs to them, giving them sole ownership over the reproduction and distribution of their work.

I believe that music absolutely has an inherent value.  When an artist envisions and creates an individual and unique work, with a new combination of tones and rhythms and notes (and lyrics when applicable), they have created something that benefits everyone who enjoys hearing their work.  I think that the value music holds is in the please in the listener it can cause.  Everyone likes music of some kind, and they find value in listening to their favorite artists and songs, giving that work worth.  People are willing to pay to see musicians to perform or to acquire a digital or other kind of copy of their work so that they can listen over and over again to the songs they love; this is a direct proof that music has value, that people are willing to pay for access to it.  No matter if the "rights" to music are sold, the piece of music will always have value as long as people are willing to expend energy and money to listen to it.

Though music most definitely has inherent value, the question of illegal downloading, whether people must pay for music, becomes more murky.  According to the current laws, downloading music without the artists consent and without paying for it is illegal.  I believe that these laws are too harsh; in many situations, downloading benefits the artist.  When someone downloads an artist's music, they are increasing the exposure that work.  By making their music free (or having people download their music for free), their work spreads and is put out there, increasing their fan base.  This is very important because with a larger fan base, an artist has a larger pool to draw from when performing at concerts and tours.  It turns out that concerts and tours are the way artists make the majority of their money; they make very little money of record and album sales.  According to an article in The Atlantic, on an average iTunes download (of price $0.99), the artist only receives $0.09, while the record label receives $0.53 and the distributor $0.37.  Because record sales do not factor as heavily into an artist's revenue scheme, the benefits of downloading (increased exposure) outweigh the negative consequences (a minimal loss in record sales) in many cases.  The big losers concerning illegal downloading is the record labels who make the majority of their money off record sales.  But it is important to keep in mind that though record labels help artists and work to promote their music, they are not the musician's themselves, the creative artists who built the piece of music that has inherent value upon which they are profiting.

I believe that while downloading may be better for the artists and in the long run may become the ingrained practice, it is still illegal and it is therefore morally wrong to download.  There are definitely pros and cons to both sides of the argument (click here for a blog laying out some of the pros and cons to each side of the argument), which is part of what makes downloading so difficult to understand and form an opinion on.  Like many things in life, downloading is not black and white but murky, all shades of grey where the legal and moral sides often blur with the convenient and enjoyable.